WATER QUALITY STUDY OF
BILLINSSLEY CREEK, IDAHO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The study purpose was to evaluate EPA's proposed trout hatchery permit limits
on Billingsley .Creek water quality. The proposed permit effluent limits are
technology based. Total suspended solids (TSS), settleable solids, nutrients
(nitrogen and.phosphorus), ammonia, and dissolved oxygen were evaluated. The
conclusions of the study are summarized below:
-,
1. TSS levels resulting from the proposed effluent limits will provide a high
level of protection for the biota and comply with Idaho WQS.
\ *
2. Settleable solids discharged from the hatcheries are a real concern for
BIlHngsley Creek.
The potential settleable sol Ids load allowed by the proposed effluent
limits is quite high. If these proposed loadings were discharged to
Billingsley Creek, it would cause unacceptable Impacts to the stream.
However, it 1s unlikely that the actual settleable solids loading would
ever be as high as proposed. Settleable solids are well below effluent
limits when the TSS meets the effluent limits. The data from the JRB
(1984) study indicated that the hatcheries can achieve trace levels of
settleable solids in their effluents. Also, the cleaning effluents which
contain the higher solids load are only discharged sporadically. But to
ensure that the possible loads under the proposed permit are never
discharged, the permit limits should be lowered for cleaning effluents and
every effort made to minimize sol Ids discharges.
RECOMMENDATIONS
a. Lower the permit limit for cleaning effluents to 0.5 ml/1.
b. Emphasize the Importance of developing operation plans that will
minimize the discharge of solids.
c. Evaluate the effect of settleable solids on the stream after a year
and reopen the permit if necessary.
3. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels 1n BUlingsley Creek appear to be
excessive. Plant growth in the stream is excessive and contributes to a
significant diurnal oxygen swing. However, the late night D.O. sag is
short lived because of the short detention time of water in the stream.
Further, D.O. never reached dangerous levels. The lowest D.O. recorded
was 5.0 mg/1. The effluents contribute both nutrients to the stream
system. However, there is evidence that much of the nitrogen (at least
the nitrites and nitrates) and some of the phosphorous may be in the
spring water before it enters the trout hatcheci&s-
-------
Phosphorus appears to be contributed to the system by the hatchery
operations. However, Individual hatchery discharges of phosphorus are at
quite low effluent concentrations and may be difficult to remove.
RECOMMENDATIONS
a. Evaluate the effect of nutrients on the stream after a year and
reopen the permit 1f necessary.
b. Emphasize the Importance of developing operations plans that minimize
the discharge of nutlents.
4. The trout hatcheries appear to have little direct Impact on dissolved
oxygen (DO) 1n BllUngsley Creek. They may contribute Indirectly to
depressed nighttime DO by discharging nutrients to the stream. At this
time there 1s no evidence that the diurnal dissolved oxygen swing has an
adverse effect on the stream. As recommended above the permit can be
reopened 1f Impacts are detected. The state'has an ongoing study that
should document any Impacts.
DESCRIPTION OF BILLINGSLEY CREEK
Bllllngsley Creek originates at Curren Spring 1n Goodlng County, approximately
3 miles from Hagerman, Idaho. The stream flows just over 7.5 miles northwest
to Its confluence with the Snake River. A number of spring fed streams are
tributary to BHHngsley Creek. The creek 1s also fed by Irrigation return
flows.
BUlingsley Creek flows primarily through agricultural lands with row crops,
pastures, and confined animal feeding operations. Water is diverted from
Billingsley Creek for Irrigation at Curren Ditch near the headwaters, and at
numerous locations in the downstream reaches.
There are four major trout hatcheries that discharge to Billingsley Creek:
Rangen Hatchery, Jones Hatchery, Idaho Springs, and Fisheries Development.
Rangen is located at the headwaters and utilizes Billingsley Creek water for
all its raceways and ponds. Virtually all the water in the creek immediately
below Rangen has passed through the hatchery. During the irrigation season
all the water in the creek below Rangen can be diverted for irrigation at
Curren Ditch, immediately below the hatchery at river mile 7:0. Jones
Hatchery discharges to the creek at river mile 5.7. This hatchery utilizes
water from a spring. During the non-irrigation season, flow in the creek
roughly doubles at Jones. When water is being diverted at Curren Ditch,
nearly all the flow below Jones results from the Jones effluent. The Idaho
Springs Hatchery discharges to BilUngsley Creek at River miles 3.9 and 3.8.
This hatchery withdraws water from Billingsley Creek for its rearing ponds.
It utilizes spring water for its raceways. Idaho Springs was not in operation
during, this study. Fisheries Development discharges to the stream at river
mile 2.7, and it utilizes spring water.
The physical habitat and water quality of Billingsley Creek are both
indicative of extensive agricultural and aquacultural use. JRB (1984) found
Bi 11-irn.gsM ey Creek water quality to be inferior to comparable spring fed
streams primarily as a result of high nutrient levels. JRB also reported
- 2 -
-------
heavy accumulations of organic material below the trout hatcheries. In
addition, they observed extensive macrophyte beds, especially downstream
of hatcheries. Overall, JRB concluded that BllUngsley Creek exhibits
symptoms of a stressed stream system, attributable to the trout
hatcheries, feedlot runoff, and grazing.
METHODOLOGY -;.
This study evaluated the Impact of the following technology based effluent
limits for trout hatcheries on the water quality of BIlHngsley Creek:
Raceway discharge:
"-. net 30-day average TSS 5.0mg/l
" Instantaneous maximum TSS 15.0mg/l
* net average dally settleable sol Ids 0.1 rag/1
Cleaning Waste Treatment Pond
* dally minimum TSS removal efficiency 85 %
* dally maximum TSS 100 mg/1
* dally minimum settleable sol Ids
removal efficiency 90%
* daily maximum settleable sol Ids 1.0 ml/I
Billingsley Creek and the four trout hatchery effluents were sampled in
January,-March, April, May, and June. Field data was collected by the Twin
Falls office of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of
Environment (DOE) and EPA's Environmental Services Division (ESD). ESD gauged
the stream in March and June and analyzed water samples in the laboratory for
BOD5» 10» 15» 20» settleable solids, suspended solids, and nutrients.
The ESD BOD data was used for the dissolved oxygen model, but DOE data was
used for the rest of the analyses because it was available for all sampling
dates. The ESD data was used as a quality assurance check.
The following parameters were measured for each station on each sampling date.
Temperature
PH
Biochemical oxygen demand
Dissolved oxygen
Total residue
Volatile residue
Non-filterable residue (suspended solids)
Total ammonia
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitrite & nitrate
Total phosphorus
Ortho phosphate
Turbidity
Conductivity
Alkalinity
- 3 -
-------
The eight stream and seven effluent stations listed below 1n Table 1 were
monitored:
TABLE 1; BUHngsley Creek Stations
River Idaho
Number Descriptions Mile STORET No.
Bl Above Rangen 9 Curren Spgs 7.8 2060047
B2 Below Rangen 9 Culvert 7.2 2060162
B3 Above Jones @ Bridge 5.8 2060163
B4 200 yards below Jones 5.6 2060164
B5 Above Idaho Springs 4.0 2060165
B5A Below Idaho Springs 3.7
B6 Below Fisheries Development 2.6 2060166
B7 1.50 below Highway 30 0.6 2060046
Fl Rangen Raceway Effluent 7.3 2060174
F1A Rangen Settling Pond Effluent 7.4 2060175
F2 Jones Raceway Effluent 5.7 2060176
F2A Jones Settling Pond Effluent 5.7 2060177
F3 Idaho Springs Raceway Effluent 3.8 2060178
F3A Idaho Springs Rearing Pond Effluent 3.9 2060179
F4 Fisheries Development Settling Pond Eff. 2.7 2060180
Standard methods were used for all analyses. The effects of the trout
hatchery effluents on dissolved oxygen were evaluated using the STREAM
water quality model developed by Manhattan College.
All the data collected for this study are listed In the Appendix to this
study. The field data for parameters of primary concern In this study are
listed 1n Appendix Tables C and D for the stream stations and Table E for
the effluents. Statistical summaries of all the data are presented in
Figures 1 and 2 and in Appendix Tables A and B for stream stations and
effluents respectively.
EFFLUENT QUALITY
Effluent quality was generally quite good with only the nutrients being at
excessive levels. Figure 1 presents a statistical summary of all of the
effluent data. Appendix Table A contains the data used to compile the
charts shown in Figure 1.
TSS were very low for all the effluents (see Appendix Table A and E).
highest recorded value was 9.8 mg/1 from the Fisheries Development
settling pond. The mean TSS levels ranged from 3.7 mg/1 at the Jones
raceway to 7.9 mg/1 at the Jones settling pond. Only two settleable
solids measurements were taken: 0.1 ml/I at the Rangen raceway and 0.1
ml/I at the Jones settling pond.
The
- 4 -
-------
TOTAL AMMONIA
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
&>
O.1*
a.u-
011
JJ.
r &»-
\
04-
0.1. -
! a,-
aa..
i
s
N
S
s
V
s
V
^
2
J
1
^
"^
'
f
S,
s
s
«l
s
1
Lj
B
H
fi
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOUDS
u-
f
I ,0-
' t-
t-
7-
'
^
N
S
a
\
3
4
T
91 ' T
t
?
«
,
'
1
]
1
t-
»
1
7-
*"
I "
4-
1 »
rm
s
N
v
s
s
H
i f
*» j
B
I
>
S
s
«
» ' *
:i
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
NITRATES + NITRITES
3-
^^
^
* *
i j~
i .
i
j
t -
<
[
!
i
S3 F_ 5
m r_A
1
r»
t
<;
^
-
9
fi
^
w
rfolicn
«
>
;
S
»*
\
s
V
s
s
s
1
"1
s
>
^
>
<
( ' f
1 T ^%> >r« <
1
^
MmJ "
u-
14-
U-
S 1.1 -
I 1-
* !i;
t 1J"
I u-
" 1J-
1.1 -
t -
&-
O.T
(fcrf *
i e
P
g
n ^ ||
( 14 1
""""" n-R.o^'
F2. ~ Jo^fi^
F3 "iclaho
FIGURE 1: Fish Hatcliery Effluent Data
in.
-------
The nutrients, phosphorus, and nitrogen were really quite low in the
effluents. Phosphorus ranged from 0-0.49 rag/1. The mean phosphorus
levels ranged fro« 0.054 rag/1 at the Idaho Springs Raceway to 0.326 at the
Jones settling pond. Mean nitrate/nitrite nitrogen levels ranged from
0.763 at the Fisheries Development settling pond to 1.148 at the Idaho
Springs Rearing Pond. Mean total ammonia levels ranged from 0.029 mg/1 at
Idaho Springs raceway to 0.322 mg/1 at the Jones raceway. Mean Kjeldahl
nitrogen ranged from 0.142 mg/1 at Idaho Springs raceway to 0.842 mg/1 at
Jones settling pond.
Oxygen levels were generally fairly high in the effluents. The lowest
recorded dissolved oxygen level was 7.1 at the Rangen raceway and the
Jones settling pond. Five day biochemical oxygen demand was generally
very low. The maximum recorded was 8.7 mg/1 at the Jones settling pond.
The mean BOD at Jones settling pond was only 5.1 mg/1. The highest mean
at the other dischargers was 2.8 mg/1 at the Jones raceway.
INSTREAM WATER QUALITY
The instream water quality of Billingsley Creek was generally quite good
during the study period (Appendix Tables C and D). Only the nutrients,
nitrogen, and phosphorus were at concentrations that could cause water
quality problems. A statistical summary of this data is presented in
Figure 2 and Appendix Table B.
Instream TSS ranged from a high of 24.0 mg/1 at Station 87 in January to a
low of less than 1.0 mg/1 at every station except Station 5 in June
(Appendix'Table B). Station 5 had 1.0 mg/1 in June. The data in Table D
indicates that TSS generally decreased at each station with season and
with flow. Further, TSS decreased below the hatcheries on each sampling
date (see Appendix Figures 1-5).
Instream nutrient levels were fairly high and constant throughout the
study. Total phosphorus ranged from 0 to 0.2 mg/1. Nitrate/nitrites
ranged from 0.72 to 9.2 mg/1. Total, ammonia ranged from .004 to .729
mg/1. Kjeldahl nitrogen ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 mg/1. It is important to
note from Appendix Table C that the headwater station (Bl) consistently
had lower levels of phosphorus, ammonia, and Kjeldahl nitrogen than the
rest of the stream, but its nitrate/nitrite levels were in the same range
as the rest of the stream.
Un-ionized ammonia was very low at every station on every sampling date.
The highest readings were on May 22 at Stations 3 and 4; 0.075 and 0.019
mg/1 respectively. The Station 3 level was apparently the result of high
pH (9.0) rather than an influx of ammonia because the total ammonia level
was only 0.350 mg/1. This is very similar to Station B2 when the total
ammonia was 0.337 but the un-ionized was only 0.0071 mg/1 The highest
un-ionized ammonia level at the other stations was 0.0097 mg/1 at
Station 86.
- 5 -
-------
TOTAL AMMONIA
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
OJ4-
0.1*
a.i«
0.14-
an-
0,1 -
9J-
OJ».
OM-
0*4-
taj.
OJ.
, «.1«-
0.14-
011-
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOUDS
10
§-
T-
ww
I s
4-
UN-IONIZED AMMONIA
NITRATES -I- NITRITES
0.033
OJ13-
oujia-
I
0414-
O.OO4-
0.002-
o
FIGURE 2: Ambient Water Quality Data
-------
Dissolved oxygen was fairly high throughout the study (Appendix Figures
1-5). The lowest value recorded was 6.2 at Station B2 below the Rangen
hatchery on March 7, 1984. Dissolved oxygen was supersaturated 1n much of
the stream during May and June. At Station B3 oxygen levels of 19.5 mg/1
1n May and 14.2 rag/1 1n June were recorded. At B5 the May concentration
was 14.8 and the June level was 12.6, and at B5A the May and June
concentrations were 12.0 and 11.2 mg/1 respectively.
STUDY RESULTS
The results of this study are summarized 1n three sections. First, we
compare the actual trout hatchery effluents to the EPA established
effluent limits for such hatcheries. Second, we summarize the Impact of
the trout hatchery effluent on Instream water quality. Following these
summaries, we present a detailed pollutant-by-pollutant analysis of the
Impact of each pollutant on BllUngsley Creek. Graphs are used whenever
possible fn presenting data. All data collected for this study 1s
compiled In the Appendix.
TSS
It Is quite evident that the hatchery effluents had little Impact on
Instream TSS during this study. Appendix Figures 1-5 show that TSS
actually decreased below the hatchery effluents (except below Rangen where
the stream Is entirely effluent).
The greatest effect of the trout hatcheries on Billingsley Creek TSS
levels will occur at the lowest flows. To analyze the worst case Impact
of the proposed effluent limits on Billingsley Creek we assumed all the
flow in the Creek was effluent from the trout hatcheries. Further, we
assumed that all effluent discharge was at the Instantaneous maximum
permit levels at the same time. The effluent flows used 1n the analysis
are the mean flows given in Appendix Table A.
Table 2 lists the worst case conditions simulated and the expected
Billingsley Creek TSS concentrations below each hatchery. The highest TSS
levels in the Creek during this hypothetical worst case would be below
Rangen (27.6 mg/1).
TABLE 2: Worst Case Analysis of the Impact '*
of the Proposed Effluent Limits on
Billingsley Creek TSS Levels:
Effluent Effluent Billingsley Creek
Row TSS TSS
(cfs) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Rangen Settling Pond 4.8 100.0 100.0*
Rangen Raceway 27.6 15.0 27.6
Jones Settling Pond 1.9 100.0
Jones Raceway 44.6 15.0 22.6
Idaho Springs Rearing Pond 30.8 15.0 20.4
Idaho Springs Raceway 52.0 15.0 18.6
Fisheries Development Settling Pond 10.9 15.0 18.4
- 6 -
-------
*Th1s high level will be totally on Rangen property and will occur over a
stream reach roughly 150 meters long.
Even this worst case for TSS should have little or no Impact on fish and
aquatic life. According to "Water Quality Criteria," (EPA, 1972) a maximum
suspended sediment concentration of 25.0 rag/1 provides a high level of
protection for aquatic communities while a maximum of 80.0 mg/1 provides a
moderate level of protection. So even this worst case will provide a
relatively high level of protection. The Idaho water quality standards
require that point sources not Increase the turbidity of receiving waters by
more than 5 NTU over background If background Is less than 50 MTU. We do not
know what turbidity would result from the highest predicted TSS of 27.6 mg/1.
However, It can be estimated roughly. Table 3 below tabulates the highest
Instreara and effluent TSS levels and their corresponding turbidities.
\ '
TABLE 3: Turbidity vs. TSS 1n BflUngsley Creek
and the Trout Hatchery Effluents
TSS (mg/1) Turbidity (NTU)
BIlHngsley Creek 24.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
16.0
Trout Hatcheries 10.8
9.8
9.6
9.0
9.0
4.6
2.0
2.7
2.7
1.2
1.4
0.8
1.3
1.7
1.2
Based on the data In Table 3, It appears that the turbidity resulting from
27.6 mg/1 TSS will be about, or less than, 5.0 NTU. In light of the fact
that 27.6 mg/1 is a fairly conservative worst case estimate of the impact
of the hatcheries on Billingsley Creek, we feel the permit Itnrits will not
violate Idaho water quality standards or adversely impact the aquatic
community of Billingsley Creek.
Settleable Solids:
Composite samples were analyzed for settlcable solids from the Rangen
raceway and Jones settling pond 1n March. Both samples were 0.1 ml/1.
JRB (1984) collected extensive data on settleable solids at the Jones and
Rangen Raceways. In 39 samples from Rangen, the TSS ranged from 14 mg/1
to less than 0.1 and the settleable solids were all traces (less than
O.T). These data demonstrate that the hatcheries will comply with the 0.1
ml/I raceway effluent limit for settleable solids if they comply with the
suspended solids limit. In fact, these effluent limits will result in
virtually no discharge of settleable solids from raceways.
- 7 -
-------
Appendix Table F lists all of the TSS and settleable solids data from JRB,
1984 for trout hatchery cleaning effluents. In nine of the samples the
TSS exceeded the 100 rag/1 effluent limits. But of those nine, only two
exceeded the 1 ml/I settleable sol Ids limit. In six of those nine, only
"trace" settleable solids (less than 0.1 ml/1) were detectable.
The data In Table F, considered as a whole, Indicate that settleable
solids will generally be considerably lower than the effluent limits when
TSS 1s equal to the effluent limits. However, the very limited data from
Rangen 1n Table 9 indicates that effluent settleable solids content might
vary proportionally with TSS so that 100 mg/1 TSS would result 1n 1.0 ml/I
settleable solids. Self monitoring data from Rangen (Appendix Table G)
does not totally support this relationship. It shows TSS levels of 14.0,
38.0, 42.8, and 29.8 with corresponding settleable solids all less than
0.1 ml/I
\
v *
So, the Rangen Hatchery probably follows the trend apparent in Appendix
Table F, i.e., settleable solids are less than the effluent limit of 1.0
ml/I when TSS equals the effluent limit of 100 mg/1.
Since TSS is the limiting parameter 1n the effluent limit, it appears that
the proposed limits will result 1n very little discharge of settleable
solIds to Billingsley Creek. However, since settleable sol Ids can
significantly impact the stream ecosystem, we simulated a hypothetical
worst case in.which the hatcheries all discharged their maximum allowed
limits of 0.1 ml/1 from raceway and 1.0 ml/1 from settling ponds. We used
the mean effluent flows listed in Appendix Table A.
Table 4 gives the volume of settleable solids that would be discharged in
a day from each of the effluents 1n the worst case situation. The average
settling velocity of the suspended sediments from Jones Hatchery 1s
1.57 cm/sec (JRB, 1984). Billingsley Creek is generally from one to four
feet deep below the hatcheries so at a settling velocity of 1.57 cm/sec
the material will settle to the bottom between 30-78 seconds after
discharge. At current velocities of-1-2 ft/sec, the material should
settle out between 30 and 156 feet from the outfalls. After that, it
would probably be slowly distributed downstream as bed load.
The volumes listed in Table 4 are clearly unacceptable. They, would result
in large areas of stream being covered by the fish farm residues. Though
these levels are possible under the proposed effluent limits, they are
highly unlikely for three reasons. First, TSS is the limiting parameter
in the effluent limitation. If the TSS limits are met, settleable solids
will be quite low; probably present only as traces. Second, the effluent
data collected for this study and the JRB data show that the settling pond
discharges almost always discharge concentrations of TSS and settleable
solids much less than the permit levels. Third, the higher concentrations
of TSS and settleable solids in the settling pond effluents will only
occur during cleaning operations; usually a fraction of the day.
- 8 -
-------
TABLE 4
Settleable Settleable
Solids Solids
cfs ml/I m3 /day
'"-.
Rangen Settling Pond 4.8 1.0 11.7
Rangen Raceway 27.6 .1 6.7
Jones Settling Pond 1.9 1.0 4.6
Jones Raceway 44.6 1 10.8
Idaho Springs Rearing
Pond. \ 30.8 .1 7.4
Idaho Springs Raceway 52.0 .1 12.6
Fisheries Development 10.9 .1 2.6
It 1s much more likely that virtually no settleable sol Ids will be
discharged from the raceways. This conclusion 1s based on the JRB data
discussed above showing that settleable solids from the Jones and Rangen
raceways was always less than 0.1 ml/I even though TSS was as high as 24
mg/1. Further, the settling pond effluent loads should be much less than
tabulated in Table 4. According to JRB, at Rangen, the large raceways are
cleaned every 30-6~0 days. The small raceways are cleaned everyday, but
cleaning effluents flow from each only 3-4 minutes. Also 0.5 ml A is a
more likely, yet conservative estimate of the level of settleable solids
discharged from Rangen. Using that concentration and two hours cleaning
time each day, the daily load from Rangen is .48M3 or 17.2 feet3. The
JRB report states that the. Jones settling pond does not, as a rule,
discharge to the creek. Therefore, much of the time it will deliver no
load to Billingsley Creek.
The daily load of settleable solids possible under the proposed effluent
limits is too great. However, the hatcheries are capable of maintaining
their settleable solids effluent concentrations much lower than the permit
levels. Most of the time settleable solids are less than quantifiable
detection limits in both the raceway and settling pond effluents. These
"traces" of settleable solids do not adversely affect Billingsley Creek.
This excellent performance can be maintained at the hatcheries if an
emphasis is placed on managing the solids load. Therefore, EPA and IDHW
should work with the hatcheries to develop management plans and 0 4 M
plans that will facilitate maximum removal of solids from the effluent.
Nutrients-Nitrogen and Phosphorus:
Appendix Table H lists total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and the
nitrogen/phosphorus ratios at Billingsley Creek. Generally, both
nutrients are somewhat excessive, potentially leading to nuisance growth
of aquatic vegetation. This is confirmed by observations that Billingsley
Creek was characterized by dense growth of macrophytes and periphyton in
1983 (JRB, 1984) and 1984 (Mike McMasters, Personal Communication).
Overall, phosphorus probably contributes more to the vegetation problems
than nitrogen. Total phosphorus concentrations greater than .02 mg/1 can
- 9 -
-------
lead to eutrophlc conditions In lakes. Phosphorus was consistently near 1
mg/1 fn BHHngsley Creek. The nitrogen/phosphorus ratio can be used to
estimate which nutrient 1s limiting plant growth. A ratio greater than 15
Indicates that phosphorus 1s limiting algae growth. A ratio lower than 15
Indicates nitrogen Is limiting. In BIlHngsley Creek the ratio 1s close
to 15 most of the time (Appendix Table H). This Indicates that nitrogen
as well as phosphorus 1s excessive and that reductions in either nutrient
should help lessen plan growth In the stream, especially perfphyton. Many
of the rooted macrophytes can obtain nutrients from the substrate as well
as the water column. Decreases 1n macrophyte growth will occur slowly.
Table E shows that the hatcheries contribute nitrogen and phosphorus to B1
llingsley Creek. JRB (1984) and McMasters (Personal Communication) both
found.vegetation to be denser below the hatcheries than elsewhere,
Indicating that the hatcheries contribute to plant growth. If at all
possible, nutrient loads, especially phosphorus from the hatcheries,
should be reduced. Total phosphorus In the hatchery effluents ranged up
to 0.49 mg/1, high enough to be excessive In thfs effluent dominated
stream but low enough to be difficult to remove. Nitrogen, especially
nitrates and nitrites, are high 1n the effluents. However, nitrates and
nitrites may be fairly high 1n the Influents to the hatcheries as well.
Station B1 Is at the headwaters of BIlHngsley Creek and may be indicative
of the quality of spring water in the valley. Table I compares nutrients
levels at Station B1 and the effluents. Total phosphorus, ammonia, and
Kjeldahl nitrogen are all higher in the effluent than at B1, but
nitrite/nitrate ts about the same in Bl as in the effluents. So while the
hatcheries appear to contribute phosphorus, ammonia, and Kjeldahl nitrogen
to the stream, they may not contribute significant amounts of nitrate
which is the most readily used nutrient form of nitrogen.
High nutrient levels contribute to excessive plant growth in Billingsley
Creek. The trout hatcheries contribute nutrients so effort should be made
to decrease effluent nutrient levels to the extent possible. However
there is no evidence of serious degredation from the plant growth. Though
the plants cause depressions in dissolved oxygen levels at night, the
lowest recorded levels (5.0 mg/1) are not dangerous to the aquatic
community. Further, the hatchery effluent phosphorus concentrations are
extremely low. Therefore, EPA and IDHW should work closely with the
hatcheries to develop management and 0 & M plans that minimize the input
of nutrients to their water supply and maximize the removal of nutrients
before discharging the water to Billingsley Creek.
UN-IONIZED AMMONIA
Un-ionized ammonia (NH3) data from Billingsley Creek are listed in
Appendix Tables D and E. Un-ionized ammonia was extremely low except on
May 22, 1984, at Station 3 when it reached 0.075 mg/1 and May 22, 1984, at
station 4 when it reach 0.0194 mg/1. The state water quality standard for
NH3 is 0.02 mg/1 as a 30-day mean. It appears from the data in Appendix
Table D that Billingsley Creek complies with that standard.
- 10 -
-------
EPA has recently published draft criteria for NH3. The criteria Include
a 30-day average value and a never to be exceeded value that varies as a
function of pH and temperature. Appendix Table J lists the criteria for
BIlHngsley Creek using ambient pH and temperature data. Note that the
BUllngsley Creek grab samples violated the 30-day average criterion only
once, on May 22, at station 83. They never violated the maximum
criterion.
At their current discharge rates, the trout hatcheries are not causing
NH3 water quality standards violations. Since the hatcheries discharged
right at or slightly less than their TSS limits, no NH3 problems are
expected from the proposed effluent limits.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Appendix Figures 1-5 show the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations
measured in BIlHngsley Creek. 00 was fairly high 1n the stream
throughout the study, with observed values never violating the state water
quality standard of 6.0 mg/1.
Starting 1n April much of the stream was supersaturated with DO when
sampled. This is the result of dense vegetation producing DO during the
day. DO saturation during the day is usually accompanied by depression of
DO levels at night. IDHW monitored DO through a 24-hour period in July
(McMasters, Personal Communication). On that day DO fluctuated
approximately 9 mg/1 from the highest daytime measurement to the lowest
nighttime measurement. The lowest DO recorded that day was 5.0 mg/1. The
high at that station was 13.2 mg/1.
Carbonaceous biochemical Oxygen demand (CBOD) ranged from 0.4-3.7 mg/1 in
the creek and 0.2-8.7 mg/1 1n the effluents. These are very low levels of
BOD and would not be expected to affect DO concentrations in shallow fast
moving streams like Billingsley Creek. This is confirmed by the DO data
discussed above.
In order to confirm that BOD from the hatcheries have little or no effect
on stream DO we utilized the stream water quality model to simulate DO in
the stream. We checked model accuracy by simulating DO on the March and
June sampling dates. Appendix Figures 6 and 7 compare simulated DO to
actually measured DO. The model simulated actual DO levels quite well.
The underestimates in June are a result of plant caused supersaturation
discussed above. The model does not simulate the effects of
photosynthesis on DO. The model predicted average DO in the absence of
photosynthesis. Photosynthesis can be accounted for by superimposing the
measured diurnal DO swing (9.0 mg/1) on the model results. This is done
by adding 4.5 mg/1 to the DO predictions and subtracting 4.5 from the
prediction. The result is a daily DO swing from 4.5 mg/1 to 13.5 mg/1 in
the stream between Jones and Idaho Springs, very close to the measured
swing. The model appears to be predicting instream time averaged DO
fairly well and can be used to predict DO in the worst case.
- 11 -
-------
The worst case situation simulated assumed all the flow in the stream to
be effluent fro» the hatcheries. The effluent flow rate for each hatchery
was set at half the June flow to reduce aeration rates and increase
residence t1«e 1n the stream. The CBOO for all the dischargers was set at
the highest level recorded for any effluent during the study (9.0 mg/1).
Likewise, dissolved oxygen was set at the lowest level recorded for any
discharger (7.1 rag/1).
Appendix Figure 8 Illustrates the results of this worst case analysis. DO
will not violate the water quality standard of 6.0 mg/1 as a result of BOD
and DO levels ,1n the effluents. However, very low DO levels could result
from plant respiration if there 1s a 9.0 mg/1 dally swing in DO as
discussed above. Utilizing the 9.0 mg/1 dally swing, the DO below Jones
could go down to 3.0 mg/1 under these worse case conditions. This low DO
would last for a,short time because of the short detention time of water
In the stream. It Is Important to note that average instream DO is never
lower than effluent DO in the worst case situation. This shows that the
low DO 1s a result of the effluent level of 7.1 mg/1 that was assumed.
Reference back to Appendix Table E shows that most of the time effluent DO
was higher than 7.1. Therefore, we feel that the worst case illustrated
in Figure 8 is a very conservative worst case.
04284
- 12 -
-------
TABLE A? STATISTICAL SUPIARY FOR 8*tUNGSLEY CREEK***
TPOUT HATCHERY EFFLUENT DATA
CFLOW - CFSJ OTHER DATA - KG/L)
STATION F1A RANGEN SETTLING PQND
PEAN
STO OEY
STO ERR
HINIf U1
PAXIPUM
RANGE
LSEO
CMITTS-)
FLOW
4.8
1.7
.7
3.0
7.0
4.0
5
0
D.O. B.
8.0
.4
.2
7.5,
* 8.3
.8
5
0
O.D. AKMCNIA
2.6
1.3
.6
1.1
4.3
3.2
5
0
.297
.175
.078
.179
.594
.415
5
0
TSS
6.0
2.8
1.2
2.2
9.6
7.4
5
0
TP
.116
.030
.014
.100
.170
.07C
5
0
NITRA
.876
.073
.033
.818
.970
.152
5
0
TKN
.616
.135
.06G
.480
SCO
.320
«
C
STATION Fl RANGEN RACEVAY
AN
fcTO 01V
STO ER*
MNI»U1
fAXl»U'1
RANGE
USED
CHITTED
FLGH .
27.6
7.9
3.5
21.6
41.0
19.4
5
0
c.o.
7.3
.2
.1
7.1
7.6
.5
5
0
8.0.0.
2.5
.7
.3
1.9
3.7
1.8
5
0
AK.1CNIA
.273
.037
.016
.224
.317
.093
5
0
TSS
4.8
2.6
1.2
1.6
7.8
6.2
5
0
TP
ICC
.014
.006
.080
.120
..)4C
5
0
MTRA
.943
.213
.095
.744
1.260
.516
5
0
TKN
.57C
.192
OS6
4CO
.9CC
.5CC
5
0
STJTIQM F2A JCNSS SETTLING PONO
PrAN
STO OcV
STO ERR
HINIPU1
PAXI*in
RANG?
USED
C-1 IT TED
FLOW
1.9
1.4
.6
.0
4.C
4.C
C
^
u
D.O. B.0.0. Art^CNIA
7.9
.6
.3
7.1
8.5
1.4
5
^
N0
5.1
2.7
1.2
2.4
8.7
6.3
5
a
.299
.109
.049
.138
.404
.266
5
0
TSS
7.9
1.8
.8
4.8
9.0
4.2
5
0
TP
.326
.131
.058
.140
.490
.350
5
0'
MTRA
.888
.054
.024
.323
.97C
.147
5
Q
TKN
.842
.253
.113
4CC
1.01C
.610
K
w
C
-------
STATION F2 JONES RACEWAY
PEAN
STO OSY
STO ERR
MM* UN
PAXIWU1
RANGE
USEO
OMITTED
FLOW
44.6
9.2
4.1
34.0 '
57.0
23.0
5
0
D.O.
8.4
.6
.3
7.5
9.2
1.7
5
0
8 .0.0.
2.8
.8
.4
2.1
4.1
2.0
5
0
AMMONIA
.322
.080
.036
.221
.416
.195
5
0
TSS
3.7
2.5
1.1
1.0
6.8
5.8
5
0
TP
.140
.057
.025
.080
.200
.120
5
0
MTRA
.944
.111
.050
.843
1.110
.267
5
0
TKN
.666
.169
.075
.440
.900
.460
5
STATION F3A IDAHO SPRINGS REARING PQNO
PEAN
STC OSV
STO ERR
MNIPU1
KAXIMU1
RANGE
USED
QHITTSO
FLGW
30.8
22.5
11.3
11.3
6C.O
48.7
4
0
' D.O. 8.O.D. AMMONIA
11.7
1.7
.9
9.9
13.8
3.9
4
0
1.4
.5
.2
.8
2.0
1.2
4
0
.122
.045
.022
.067
.169
.102
4
0
TSS
5.3
1.7
.9
3.6
7.4
3.8
4
0
TP
' .100
ccc
ceo
IOC
.100
.000
4
0
MTRA
1.148
.241
.121
.960
1.500
.540
4
C
TKN
.450
.058
.029
.400
.50C
ICO
4
C
STATION F3 ICAHO SPRINGS RACEWAY
PEAN
STO OSV
STO ERR
MNIPU1
*AXI,*in
RANGE
USED
(HITT53-
FLOW
42. C
24.1
10.8
.0
6-:.o
6C.O
f
C
D.Q. B.Q.O. AMMONIA
10.5
.6
.3
9.9
11.2
1.3
5
0
1.0
.3
.4
.2
2.0
1.8
5
0
.029
.007
.003
.021
.039
.018
5
0
TSS
5.4
3.0
1.3
1.6
8.6
7.0
5
0
TP
.054
.044
C20
.000
.ICC
.100
5
0
MTRA
.813
.044
.020
.770
.880
.110
5
0
TKN
.142
.043
.019
.IOC
.2CC
ICO
5
C
STATION F4 FISHERIES DEVELCPPcNT SETTLING POND
MEAN
STO 03V
STC E<*R
.»IM.»U*
PAX I- "'.»»
RANGE
UScO
C.IITTr*
FLOW
10.9
3.5
1.5
7.2
1?.5
8.3
s
U
D.O. B.C.O. AMMONIA
9.4
.9
.4
*.5
i; .a
2.3
5
0
3.4
1.9
.8
1.5
6.1
4.t
5
0
.273
.190
.08?
.066
.434
.363
5
0
TSS
5.8
2.8
1.2
2.8
9.8
7.0
5
C
TP
.160
.062
.028
.C6C
.20CT
.140'
5
0
NITRA
.763
.130
.058
.5<3fe
.95C
.354
5
0
TKN
.778
.273
.122
.31G
l.OCC
.6SO
5
0
-------
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SILLINGSLEY CREEK FILC DATA**
( ALL DATA - MG/L)
STATION 81 A30VE RANGEN TROUT HATCHERY
PEAN
STO OEV
STO ERR
MINIMUM
FAXIW.U1
RANGE
USED
CMITTHO
0.0.
9.3
1.1
.5
7.3
io.o
2.7
5
0
APMON
.030
.033
" .015
.004
.084
.080
5
0
TSS
4.0
3.4
1.5
.0
- 8.8
8.8
5
0
TP
.018
.025
.011
.000
.050
.050
5
C
NITRA
.957
.201
.-09C
.820
1.300
.480
5
0
NH3
.0010
.0014
.0006
OOC1
.0034
.0033
5
' 0
TKN
.114
.019
.009
.100
.140
.040
5
0
STATION 82 BELCW RANGEN TRCUT HATCHERY
PEAN
STO OEV
STO £31
f INIPUM
KAXIP'JI
RANGE
USED
CHITTED
D »G »
7.9
1.1
.5
6.2
9.4
3.2
5
0
AfMON
2?2
.044
.019
.232
.337
.105
5
0
TSS
7.9
6.2
2.8
.0
16.4
16.4
5
0
TP
.136
.C43
.019
.100
.200
.100
5
0
NITPA
.919
.173
.077
.814
1.220
.406
5
0
NH3
.0033
-.3022
.0010
.0013
. .0071
.0058
5
0
TKN
.630
.082
.037
.500
.700
2CO
5
0
**LEGEND
D.O. = Dissolved Oxygen
AMMON = Total Ammonia
TSS = Total Suspended Solids
TP = Total Phosphorus
NITRA = Nitrates + Nitrites
NH3 * Un-ionized Ammonia
TKN * Kjeldahl Nitrogen
-------
STATION 83 ABOVE JONES TRCUT HATCHERY**
PEAN
STO OEV
5TO £R*
PINIPU'1
PAXI*U1
RANGE
USED
QUITTED
0.0.
13.0
4.0
1.3
9.7
19.5
9.3
5
0
A«MON
, .234
.136
.061
.053
.391
.333
5
0
TSS
9.6
8.9
4.C
.0
22.0
22.0
5
0
TP
.114
.022
.010
.100
.150
.050
5
0
NITRA
1.580
.633
.283
1.070
2.510
1.440
5
0
NH3
.0183
.0313
.5142
.0015
.0750
.0735
5
0
TKN
.562
.152
.268
.400
.800
.400
5
0
STATION 84 3ELCW JONES TROUT HATCHERY
O.Q. A MM ON
PEAN
STO OSV
STO ERR
J»IM»lr«
PAXI«'J1
RANG2
USED
CHITTEO
10.8
.7
.3
1C. 2
11.6
1.4
5
0
.344
.223
.ICO
.139
.729
.540
5
0
TSS
6.6
6.0
2.7
.0
16. C
16. 0
5
0
TP
.108
.011
.005
.ICC
.120
.020
5
0
NITRA
2.624
3.694
1.652
.791
9.23C
8.439
5
0
NH3
.0061
.0077
.0034
.0007
.J1S4
.0187
5
0
TKN
.638
.091
.C41
.530
.700
.200
5
0
35 A8GVE IDAHO SPRINGS TRCUT HATCHERIES
PEAN
STQ 02V
STD c<5R
PIN I Pin
PAXIPtJI
RANGE
USED
CWITTSO
c.a.
11.7
2.J
.9
10.1
14.8
4.7
5
0
AMKON
.137
.050
OZ2
.055
.185
.130
5
0
TSS
9.9
7.3
3.5
l.C
20. C
19.0
5
0
TP
.110
.017
.008
.100
.140
.040
5
0
NITRA
1.024
.191
.086
.721
1.170
.449
5
0
NH3
.0049
.QQ24
.con
.0031
.0090
.0059
5
0
TXN
.514
.129
.C58
.400
.710
.310
5
0
-------
STATION B5A 86LOW IDAHO SPRINGS TRCUT HATCHERY**
rEA.N
STD OEV
STD ER1*
HINX.'UM
PAXXJNJ1
RANGE
USED
CHITTED
0.0.
10.7
1.1
.6
9.6
12.3
2.4
4
0
APMON
.087
.042
' .021
.036
.136
.100
4
0
TSS
3.4
2.7
1.3
.0
6.0
6.0
4
0
TP
.103
.005
.002
.100
.110
.010
4
0
NITRA
.957
.052
.026
.908
1.020
.112
4
0
NH3
.0034
.0012
.0006
.0020
.0047
.0027
4
0
TKN
^36^
VC^S
.C37
.330
.450
.150
4
0
STATION B6 8ELQH FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT TROUT HATCHERY
WEAN
STO OSV
STO ERR
MNI.-U1
PAXI'UI
°ANGE
iEQ
CMTTE.')
0.0.
9.8
.3
.4
a. 9
11.0
2.1
5 "
0
AHHON
.132
.061
.027
.370
.231
.161
5
0
TSS
9.3
7.9
3.5
.0
21.0
21.0
5
3
TP
.102
.004
.002
.100
.110
.010
5
0
NITRA
1.032
.123
.055
.960
1.250
.290
5
G
NH3
.0053
.0026
.0012
.0031
.0097
.0066
5
^
u
TKN
.394
.056
C25
.300
.450
.150
5
0
STATION 87 BELOW HIGHWAY 30
^_
f»cAN
STO CSV
STO £7°,
1»INI*LM
PAXI-'JM
RANGE
USED
CMITTrO
C.O.
1C..)
.4
.2
9.6
iC.7
1.1
5
0
AMMON
.086
.025
.011
.049
.117
.068
5
0
TSS
9.9
8.9
4.C
.0
24-.0
24. C
5
0
TP
.102
.018
U08
.G80
.13C
,C5C
5
0
NITRA
.958
04C
.018
.920
1.02G
.100
5
0
NH3
.0019
.0008
.0304
.0012
.C030
0018
5
0
TKN
.368
.389
.C4C
.200
.510
.210
5
0
^LEGEND
D.O. =
TSS =
NITRA =
TKN
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Solids
Nitrates"-i- Nitrites
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
AMMON = Total. Ammonia
TP = Total Phosphorus
NH3 = Un-ionized Ammonia
-------
TABLE C: 8ILLINGSLEY CREEK FIELD DATA SORTEO BY DATE1
(FLOW - CFSJ OTHER DATA - MG/L)
FIELD rMTA COLLECTED-JANUARY 31, 1984
STA 1ILE DATE FLOh 0.0. AHHON
TSS
TP
NITRA NH3
FIELD !MTA COLLECTED MARCH 6 AND 7, 1934
STA "ILE DATE FLOW 0.0. AMMQN TSS
TP
NITRA NH3
TKN
81
82
83
a*
85
86
97
7.8
7.2
5.8
5.6
4.0
2.6
. 6
01/31/84
01/31/84
01/31/84^
01731/84
01/31/84
01/31/84
Ql/31/84
.0
44.0
57.0
121.0
136.0
.0
213.0
9.3
7.8
10.2
10.2
IO.1
9.3
10.0
.004
.254
.196
.189
.145
.130
.117
8.3
11*2
22.0
16.0
20.0
21.0
24.0
.040
.120
.120
.120
.110
.110
' .130
1.300
1.220
1.180
1.080
1.120
1.010
1.020
. CCC1
.0025
.0021
.0027
C031
C038
C015
.130
.690
.500
.500
.560
.420
.510
TKN
81
82
83
84
as
B5A
86
87
7.8
7.2
5. 3
5.6
4.0
3.7
2.6
. 6
33/07/84
Q3/CT/84
J3/C6/84
03/C6/84
03/C6/84
03/C6/fl4
03/06/84
03/06/84
.0
31. 0
47.0
99. ij
119.0
179.6
211.0
201.0
7.3
6.2
9.7
10.2
10.6
9.6
8.9
9.7
.039
.271
.173
.199
.166
.101
.099
.081
2.3
16.4
15.2
7.8
14.0
6.0
11.0
7.4
C50
.160
.150
.120
.140
.110
.100
.080
.970
.910
1.070
.970
1.160
.978
.960
.950
.OCQ5
.CC2-7
.CC4?
.0016
.OC52
CC31
.CQ31
.CC14
.14C
.66f
M
.710
.450
.450
.33C
FIELO DATA COLLECTED APRIL 24, 1984
STA HT/LE DATE FLO* 0.0. AMrtON
TSS
TP
NITRA NH2
"LEGEND
D.O. = Dissolved Oxygen
TSS = Total Suspended Solids
NITRA = Nitrates + Nitrites
TKN = Kjeldahl Nitrogen
AMMON = Total Ammonia
TP = Total Phosphorus
NH3 = Un-ionized Ammonia
TKN
81 .
82
83
84
85
85A
86
87
7. 3
7. 2
S.8
5,6
4. C
3.7
2. 6
. £
04/24/84
U4/24/94
04/24/84
04/24/84
04/24/84
G4/24/84
04/24/84
04/24/84
.0
28.0 .
40. 'J
ez.c
108.0
153.0
153.0
158.0
9.9
8.1
11.3
11.4
1C. 5
10.0
9.8
9.6
.003
.316
.391
.264
.185
.136
.231
.099
5.8
6.6
6.3
5.6
11.2
5.3
9.6
11.3
.COO
.ICO
.103
.100
.100
.100
.100
.100
.820
.320
1.170
9.230
.950
.903
1.250
.920
.OCG2
.0027
CC90
.CC63
CG34
.0047
.C051
CC26
.100
.6CG
.8CC
.7GC
.50C
.400
.40C
.400
-------
FIELD
*TA
^81
82
83
84
85
B5A
86
87
TATA
NILE
7.8
7.2
5.8
5.6
4. C
3.7
2.6
.6
COLLECTED
DATE
05/22/84
05/22/84
05/22/84
05/22/84 .
05/22/84
05/22/84
05/22/84
C5/22/84
MAY 22
FLOW
.0
27.0
4.0
. .42.0
45.0
112.0
121.0
.0
» 1984
0.0.
10.0
7.8
19.5
11.6
14.8
12.0
11.0
10.7
**
AMfON
.014
.337
.350
.729
.055
.036
.070
.049
;s
2.8
5.1
3.8
3.4
3.4
2.6
4.8
6.4
TP
.COO
.200
'.100
.100
.100
.100
.100
.100
NITRA
.825
.828
2.510
.791
.721
.922
.970
.930
NH3
CG34
C071
.0750
C194
.0090
CC39
GG97
GG12
TKN
.100
*700
.400
.700
.400
.300
.400
.300
FIELD
STA
OXTA
ILE
7.8
7.2
5.8
5*6
>.a
3.7
?.'6
.6
COLLECTED
DATE
06/12/84
C6/12/84
C6/12/84
06/12/84
c-o/12/e*
C6/12/84
C6/12/84
06/12/84
JUNE
FLOW
.0
35.5
5.0
50.8
54.0
120.0
141.0
143.0
12* 1984
0.0.
9.9
9.4
14.2
10.4
12.6
11.2
10. 1
9.9
ANMQN
.084
.232
.058
.336
.136
C75
.129
.Q34
TSS
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
TP
.000
.100
.100
.100
.100
.ICO
.100
.100
NITRA NH3
.872
.814
1.970
1.050
1.170
1.02C
.969
.972
OG06
CQ13
.CC15
.CCC7
GC38
.GC2Q
.0048
.C030
TKN
.100
.500
.500
.700
.400
.300
.30C
.300
**LEGEND
D.O. -
TSS-
NITRA
TKN
AMMON
TP
NH3
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Solids
Nitrates + Nitrites
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Ammonia
Total Phosphorus
Un-ionized Ammonia
-------
TABLE D. ; BILLINGSLEY CREEK FIELD OATA SQR7EC
( FLOW - CFS; QTHEP CATA - PG/L)
BY STATION **
FIELD OATA FRO* STATION 81
STA MILE DATE
FLOW
0.0. AMMON TSS
TP
NITRA NH3
TKN
81
81
81
ai
81
7.8
7, 8
7.8
7.8
7.8
31/31/84
C3/07/84
04/24/84 .
05/22/84
06/12/84
.3
.0
.0
.0
0
9.3
7.3
5.9
10.0
9.9
.004
.039
.008
.014
084
8.8
2.8
9.8
2.3
.0
.040
C50
.000
.000
.000
1.300
.970
.820
.375
.872
OC01
CQ05
.0002
C034
. CC06
.130
.140
.100
.100
.100
* FLOW WAS NOT MEASURED
FIELC 04TA FRQP STATION B2
STA illLE DATE FLOW D.O. ANMON TSS TP NITRA NH3 TKN
82
32
82
82
82
7. 2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
01/31/84
03/G7/84
04/24/84
05/22/84
Ct/12/84
44.0
31.0
23.0
27.0
35.5
7.8
6.2
3.1
7.8
9.4
.254
.271
.316
.337
.232
11.2
16.4
6.6
5.1
.0
,120 1.220
,160 .910
.100 .820
,200 .828
,100 .814
.CC25
.QC27
.0027
.C071
OC13
.690
.660
.600
.700
.500
FIELD T\TA FRO^ STATION 83
STA 1ILE DATE FLOW 0.0. ArtKON. TSS
TP
NITRA NH3
TKN
S3
83
83
83
83
5.8
=?. a
5. a
T. 8
s. a
Ui/31/84
03/C6/84
J 4/24/8 4
05/22/84
J6/12/84
57.0
47.0
40.0
4.0
5.0
10.2
S.7
11.3
19.5
14.2
.196
.173
.391
.350
.058
22.3
15.2
6.8
3.8
.0
.120
.150
.ICO
1C3
.ICO
1.180
1.070
1.170
2. 5 1C
1.970
.0021
.CC4C
.C090
.C750
.0015
.500
.610
.800
.40C
.500
34
34
84
H4
8*
T\
TL
5
T .
"5 .
5.
5 .
TA
*
c
(,
fc
6
6
fc
FSO* STATION 8*
DATE
n/3i/*<*
0 2/C ^/ 64
24/24/84
05/22/R4
C6/12/84
FLOW
121.
99 .
62.
42.
50.
w
^
0
0
8
0«C.
1J.2
10.2
11. V
11.6
13.4
A^PON
.139
.199.
.264
.729
.332
TSS
16.
7.
5.
3.
.-)
a
6
4
J
TP
t
123
120
IC'J
100
100
NITRA
1.050
.970
9.230
.791
1.050
.CC27
.CC16
CC63
.C194
.CC07
.500
.590
.70
.700
-------
FIELD OMA FRQf STATION 65**
-ILE OATS FLOW D.O. AHMQN TSS
B5
85
65
85
85
4.0
4.0
4.C
4. C
4.0
01/31/84
03/06/84
C4/24/84
C5/22/84
06/12/84
136.0
119.0
108.0
" 45.0
54.0
10.1
10.6
10.5
14.8
12.6
.145
.166
.135
.05!
.136
20.0
14.0
11.2
3.4
1.0
TP
NITRA NH3
.110 1.120
.140 1.160
.100 .950
.100 .721
.100 1.170
C031
.C052
'.CC34
CC90
.0038
TKN
.560
.710
.500
.400
.400
FIELD OXTA FROW STATION B5A
STA "ILE DATE FLOW 0.0. AMMON TSS
B5A' 1,7 U3/C6/84
E5A 3.7 04/24/84
E5A 3.7 03/22/84
B5A 3.7 06/12/84
179.6 9.6
153. 0 10.0
112.0 12.0
120.0 11.2
.101
.136
.036
.072
6.0
5.0
2.6
.0
TP
NITRA NH3
.110 .978
.100 .908
.100 .922
.100 1.020
CC31
.CC47
.0039
.0020
TKN
.450
. 40C
.300
.300
FIELC 0\TA PROP STATION 6
STA :1ILE DATE FLOW
0.0. ArtfON TSS
86
86
96
86
80
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
01/31/84
03/06/84
04/24/84
35/22/84
.6/12/84
.0
211.0
183. 0
121.0
141.0
9.3
8.9
9.8
11.0
10.1
.130
.099
.231
.070
.129
21.0
11.0
9.6
4.8
.0
TP
NITRA' NH3
.110 1.010
.100 .960
.100 1.250
.100 .970
.100 .969
.0038
.0031
.CC51
.CC97
.CC43
TKN
.420
.450
.400
.400
.300
FIELD 0\TA FROM STATION 87
STA *ILE DATE FLOW 0.0. ArtHON TSS
TP
NITRA NH3
TKN
87
87
67
" 7
.6
. 6-
' . 6
. 1
. t
01/31/84
03/C6/84
: vz*/?<>
05/22/84
WO/12/S4
213.0
201.?
L58.Q
.0
14 3. J
10.0
S.7
9.6
10.7
9.9
.117
C31
.099
.049
.C84
24.'J
7.4
11.3
6.4
.0
.130
.cao
.ICO ''
.10.)
.100
1.020
.950
.920
.930
.972
.C015
.0014
CC26
.CC12
CC3C
.510
.330
.400
.3CC-
.300
-------
if*
14
1A
I*
1*
IA
IrtflLb .t'
BILLIM;SU Y
I FLOW
CH:.J:K CMJUJ HAltHtKI
UTH!-fc 0«T/ MG/LJ
MILE n»TE
kMLUfcNi H; i*
RVIGEN SETTLING PflNl EFFLUENT
R4IGIN SETTLING POHt AFFLUENT
RA IGtN SttTLIfcG PUMO EFFLUENT
IM-IGEN SETTLING POND EFFLUENT
HVIGIN SFTTLUG PUMC AFFLUENT
STA N4'U
Fl RVHGEN PACEWAY CFFLUtNT
Ft "UIGKN RACEWAY EFFLUtNT
Fl RtMGEN RACEWAY EFFLUENT
Fl RVICEN FACEWAV EFFLUENT
Fl RVIGEN RACEWAY EFFLUUIT
FLO* t
..o^W
.o.n. ANPOMA TSS
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
01/31/04
03/07/84
04/24/84
09/22/84
06/12/84
3.3
7.t-
5.0
5.7
3.3
f,3
fl.O
C.1
7.5
7.7
3.4
1.7
4.3
1.1
2.4
.171
.118
.315
.111
.514
1.6
4.6
6.8
7.0
2.2
NILE DATE
FLOW C.O. B.0.0. AMCOMA TSS
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
01/31/84
03/07/84
04/24/84
09/22/84
06/12/84
41.0
24.0
23.0
21.6
28.9
7.5
7.2
7.1
7.6
7.1
1.1
2.6
J.7
2.0
2.2
.246
.268
.317
.287
.224
6.6
TP
NITRA TKN
.170 .140 .480
.110 .170 .7C')
.100 .920 »«rO
.1JO .fllfl .600
.10U .834 .500
TP
NITRA TKh
.060 1.260 .940
1.6 .120 1.020 .510
5.4 .100 .140 .500
7.8 .100 .75) .400
2.7 .100 .744 .900
STA NA1E
F2A J1H(S SETTLING POND EFFLUENT
FZ* JlMtS SETTLING POND EFFLUENT
F2A JO'IES SETTLING POhO EFFLUENT
F2A JtVIFS SETTLING POND EFFLUENT
F2A JTIES SETTLING POND EFFLUENT
HUE DATE
FLOW C.O. 8.0.0. AHKOMA TSS
TP
NITRA TKN
5.7
9.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
01/11/84
01/06/84
04/24/84
09/22/64
06/12/84
4.0
2.0
2.0
.0
1.4
8.4
7.1
8.5
e.n
7.6
2.9
6.9
8.7
2.4
4.6
.138
.261
.286
.317
.404
0.6
8.0
1.0
1.0
4.8
140
.410
.400
.300
.300
.970
.100
.860
.82)
.886
.4(10
1.010
l.OPO
.icn
.900
VI
STA NME
F2 J1HES RACEUY EFFLUENT
F2 /VIES RACEkAY EFFLUENT
F2 HUES RACEWAY EFFLUENT
F2 JdlES RACEhAY EFFLUENT
F2 JlrlES RICthAT EFFLUENT.
STA N41E
NILE DATE
FLOW C.C. 8.0.0. AMOMA TSS
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
01/31/64
03/06/84
04/24/84
09/22/84
06/12/84
97.0
91.0
40.0
34.0
41.1
(.6
8.0
7.9
1.2
8.6
3.1
2.4
4.1
2.1
2.4
.221
.297
.361
.399
.416
6.8
1.4
4.2
9.2
1.0
MILE DATE
FLOM 0.0. 8.0.0. AHKOMA TSS
TP NITRA TKN
.080 1.110 .440
.120 1.000 .990
.200 .660 .900
.200 .843 .TOO
.100 .108 .700
TP
NITRA TKN
a k- k-
n it ii it
F3A
FJA
FJA
F3»
IDAHO SPRINGS REARIKG PONO EFF
IDAkiO SPRINGS REARING PONO EFF
I'M 1-0 SPRINGS BEARIKG POND EFF
IIMKT SPRINGS REARING PONO EFF
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
03/06/84
04/24/84
09/22/64
06/12/64
(0.0
37.0
19.0
11.3
9.9
10.8
13.8
12;?
1.4
2.0
.6
1.4
.144
.169
.067
.106
*!
4.f
3.6
7.4
H. 100
.100
,.100
.100
1.090
.960
1.041
1.900
.900
.900
.400
.400
LU O
r n ^"\ *r" i n
\D O £^ vi
ui s:
_» 0 < k-
*
-------
STA N41E
NILE DATE
FLOW C.O. 8.0.0. ANKOMA TSS
TP
NITRA TKN
F3 It)*HO SPRINGS RACEWAY EFFLUENT
F3 I04HO SPRINGS RACENAT EFFLUENT
F3 ID*HO SPRINGS RACEWAY EFFLUENt
F) IDttO SPRINGS RACEWAY EFFLUENT
F3 lOltO SPRINGS RACEWAY EFFLUENT
8
6
8
8
8
01/31/84
03/06/84
04/24/84
09/22/84
06/12/84
.0
99.0
49.0
90.0
(0.0
1C.O
9.9
10.)
11.1
11.2
1.6
.8
2.0
.2
.2
.0?6
.021
.029
.039
.030
3.2
1.6
8.6
9.6
7.8
.030
.040
.100
.100
.ouo
.880
.820
.770
.177
.818
.I6C
.150
.200
.100
.100
FLOW C.C. B.0.0. AMHOMA TSS
STA NME NILE DATE
ft FISH DEV SETTLING PONO EFFLUFN
F4 FISH DEV SETTLING PONO EFFLUEN
F4 FISH DEV SETTLING POND EFFIUEN
M FISH OEV SETTLING PONO EFFLUEN
ft FISH OEV SETTLING POND EFFLUEN 2.7 06/12/04 19.5 9.2 2*4
2.7
2.7
2.1
2.7
01/31/84
03/06/84
04/14/84
09/I2/C4
11.0
13.0
0.0
7.2
8.9
1C'. 8
9.1
9.4
6.1
1.9
4.4
2.4
.387
.076
.427
.434
.066
TP
.149
.060
.ZOO
.200
MITRA
.99? .780
.110 .310
,730 .900
.728 1.001
40 .200 .996
,900
**LEGEND
D.O. = Dissolved Oxygen
AMMON = Total Ammonia
TSS = Total Suspended Solids
TP = Total Phosphorus
NITRA = Nitrates + Nitrites
NH3 - Un-ionized Ammonia
TKN = Kjeldahl Nitrogen
B.O.D. =^5 day Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
-------
Table F: TSS and Settleable Solids 1n
Cleaning Effluents of Trout Hatcheries
Date
Springs Hatchery
Crystal Spr
5/ZO/83
5/22/83
5/23/83
5/24/83.
6/08/83
6/09/83
R1m View Hatchery
b/01/83
Pisces Hatchery
5/12/83
5/13/83
5/14/83
5/15/83
5/16/83
F1sh Breeders
5/19/83
5/20/83
5/21/83
5/22/83
5/23/83
5/24/83
5/25/83
6/08/83
6/09/83
6/10/83
Hagerman Hatchery
5/16/83
5/17/83
5/18/83
5/19/83
5/20/83
5/21/83
Rangen Hatchery
5/29/83
5/30/83
6/01/83
6/03/83
6/04/83
Jones Hatchery
6/02/83
6/07/83
Effluent
(mg/1)
264
142
186
128
124
22
42
132
110
92
103
150
33
25
30
22
36
25
24
37
23
35
13
6
11
4
5
6
8
9
34
3
22
13
49
TSS
Effluent Set.
(ml/I)
2.5
0.5
11.0
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
0.1
Trace
0.3
Trace
0.2
Trace
Slds,
-------
Table G : Rangen Self Monitoring Data
Date
01/83
02/83
01/84
02/84
03/84
05/84
TSS iag/1
4.0
29.0
14.0
38.0
42.75
29.8
Settleable Solids
ml/I
less than
less than
less than
less than
less than
less than
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
Table H : Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus
and the N/P Ratio at B1l11ngsley Creek
B1
82
83
B4
85
B5A
86
11/31/84
3/07/84
4/24/84
5/22/84
6/12/84
1/31/84
3/07/84
4/24/84
5/22/84
6/12/84
1/31/84
3/06/84
4/24/84
5/22/84
6/12/84
1/31/84
3/06/84
4/24/84
5/22/84
6/12/84
1/31/84
3/06/84
4/24/84
5/22/84
6/12
3/06
4/24
5/22
6/12
1/31
3/06
4/24
5/28
6/12
1/31
3/06
4/24
5/22
6/12
TN
1.4
1.1
.9
.9
1.0
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.9
2.5
1.6
1.6
9.9
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.1
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
TP
.04
.05
0
0
0
.12
.16
.1
.2
.1
.12
.15
.1
.1
.1
.12
.12
.1
.1
.1
.11
.14
.1
.1
.1
.11
.1
.1
.1
.11
.1
.1
.1
.1
.13
.08
.1
.1
.1
N/P
35
22
16
10
14
7.5
13
14
11
20
29
25
13
13
99
15
18
15
14
15
11
16
13
13
12
13
13
14
17
14
13
12
16
13
12
13
-------
TP
§1
0-0.05
TABLE I: Comparison of Nutrient Levels at
Station B1 With Nutrient Levels In The
Hatchery Effluents
Rangen
Raceway Settling Pond
0.08-0.12 0.1-0.17
Jones Idaho Springs
Raceway Settling Pond Raceway Settling Pond
0.00-0.2 0.14-0.49 0-0.1
0.1
Fisheries Develop.
Settling Pond
0.06-0.2
Aimtonla
0.004-0.084 0.224-0.317 0.179-0.594 0.221-0.416 0.138-0.404 0.21-0.39 0.067-0.169 0.066-0.434
KJeldahl-N 0.1-0.14
0.4-0.9 0.48-0.8
0.44-0.90 0.4-1.01
0.1-0.2
0.4-0.5 0.310-1.0
Nitrite/
Nitrate 0.82-1.3
0.744-1.26 0.818-0.97 0.843-1.11 0.823-0.97 0.77-0.88 0.96-1.5 0.596-0.950
0405d
-------
TABLE J-': BILUNGSLE* CREEK NH3 CRITERIA AND ACTUAL NH3 CONCENTRATION
DURING THE 1984 FIELD STUDY
STATION
» DATE
Bl
Bl
Bl
81
81
B2
B2
82
82
B2
R3
B3
B3
83
B3
B4
B4
B4
*4
B4
B5
B5
H5
B5
B5
t»5A
B5A
BSA
B5A
Bb
B6
Bb *~
66 =
Bb
87
87
B7
B7
fc»7
1/31/84
3/7/84
4/24/84
5/22/84
b/12/84
1/31/84
3/7/84
4/24/P4
5/22/84
b/12/84
1/31/84
3/6/84
4/24/84
5/22/84
0/12/84
1/31/84
3/6/84
4/24/«4
5/22/44
6/12V84
1/31/84
3/6/84
4/24/84
b/22/84
t>/12/84
3/6/84
4/24/84
5/22/84
b/12/84
1/31/84
3/6/84
4/24/84
5/22/84
0/12/84
1/31/84
J/b/84
4/24/84
5/22/S4
b/12/84
TEMP (C) PH(SU)
14.00
14.2
14.8
14.2
14.5
13.8
14
14.8
15
14.9
12.1
14
16.1
15
15
13
14.2
16.6
15.1
15
12
14.3
lo
lo-.9
15.5
14
15.6
Ib.b
15.8
13.2
14.2
15.5
17
16.5
11 .6
12.5
14.9
In
Ib
7.90
8.1
8
8
8.1
7.b
7.6
7.5
7.9
7.3
7.7
8
7.9
9
8
7.8
7.5
7.9
8
6.9
t»
8.1
7.8
8.8
8
8.1
8.1
8.0
8
a. i
8.1
7.9
8.7
8.1
7.8
7.9
8
P.O
H.I
\\ 30-DA*
\\CRltEPIA
\\MG/L NH3-N
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\S
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\N
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
1)
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.021
.021
.018
.025
.013
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.018
.025
.025
.007
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.02b
.025
.025
.^2b
\\ MAXIMUM
\\ CRITERIA
\\MG/L NH3-N
\\
\\
\N
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
A\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I)
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.098
.107
.103
.103
.107
.081
.081
.075
.09*
.060
.088
.103
.098
.121
.103
.093
.075
.098
.103
.033
.103
.107
.093
.120
.103
.107
.107
.118
.103
.107
. 107
.098
.119
.107
.093
.098
.103
.1 IP
.107
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
N
\
\
\
\
ACTUAL
NH3
MG/L NH3-
.0001
.0005
.0002
.0034
.0006
.0025
.0027
.0027
.0071
.0013
.0021
.0040
.0090
.0750
.0015
.0027
.0016
.0063
.0194
.0007
.0031
.0052
.0034
.0090
.0038
.0031
.0047
.0039
.0020
.0038
.0031
.0051
.OU97
.0048
.0015
.0014
.0026
.0012
.OU30
-------
FIGURE i: DISSOLVED OXYGEN (0) AND TSS (S) IN MG/L VERStS
RIVER fllLE ON JANUARY 31, 1984.
25.
24.
23.
22.
21.
20.
19.
13.
17.
16.
15.
14.
13.
12.
11.
13.
9.
a.
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8
!
f
^ <^ « w w V «* » v ^v«
.-»1~» >-.- + -.--..-.».----+.
\
\
f\
*r-
.5
5 l.J 1.5 2.0 2.5| 3.0 3.5 |4.0 4.5 5.0 5.
FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT
IDAHO
SPRINGS
i i
JONES
6.0 6.5
7.0
RANGES
-------
2: DISSOLVED OXYGEN (0) AND TSS (S) IN MG/L
VERSUS PIVER WILE ON flAPCh 6-7t 1984.
5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 £
I - -1'
. 5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
FISHERIES
T 3.0 3,5 |?.0 4.5 5.0 5.5^ 6.0 6.5 7.0 J7.5
IDAHO
JONES
RANGeN
DEVELOPMENT SPRINGS
-------
PIGURE 3s DISSOLVED OXYGEN (0) AND TSS CS) IN MC/L
VERSUS RIVER MILE ON APRIL 24,1934.
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4..0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5
. 5 1,
.0 1.5 2.0 2.5T 3.0 3.5 X.O 4.5 5.0 5.5 * 6.0 6.5 7.0
FISHERIES IDAHO
DEVELOPMENT SPRINGS
J(
ONES
7.5
RANCENi
-------
FIGURE 4: DISSOLVED OXYGEN (0) AND TSS (S) IN MG/L
VERSUSS RIVER MILE CN MAY 22, 1984.
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.2
»
20.
19.
13.
17.
16.
15.
14.
13.
12.
,
9
14.
9.
a.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
t
i
;
i
i
i
i
t
i
t
t
t
! 0-
t
t
t
i
t
i
! £
i
i
!
i
t
i
* <
.5
-\
1.0 1.5
. >_..~_>_.i_._4._.
2.0 2.5T 3.0
FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT
3.5
IDA
SPRINGS
f
\ ' '
4.0 4.5
"HO
5.0 5.S7
J
^ 6.0
ONES
6.5 7.0
.7?:r
tANGEN
-------
PIGURE s: DISSOLVED OXYGEN (o AND TSS m IN MG/L
VERSUS RIVER MILE QN JUNE 12, 1984.
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.2
15.
14.
13.
12.
11*
10.
9.
a.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
0.
;
! . 1
t
I
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
I
t
1
1
t
t
t =_
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.51
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.;
. t
.
FISHERIES
DEVELCPHENT
I.S 14.j 4.5 5.0
ICJAHO
SPRINGS
*-*-»rpr*~
fc.O 6.5 7.0 |7.«
JCNES RANGES
-------
FIGURE 6
B i 11 i n g s I ey C re e k D. U.
March, 1 984-
1 1 .'_'
1 0.0 -
c 9,0 -
a;-
p>
,..
o
o S.O -
in
Q 7.0 -
6,0 -
3.0 -
C
0
"""--
o o ""---^. -o-
~^%.
X
*
\
\
A
\
\
\
'i
\
WATER QUALITY STANDARD
1 II ill
J . 24- 6
Fiekl'data"""
-------
FIGURE 7
"L-
o
(.0
to
13
12 -
1 1 -
10 -
U
Billingsley Creek D.O
June, 1984-
WATER QUALITY STANDARD
0
I
4
River Mih
Field doto
-------
FIGURE 8
c
Ov
o
fl-
irt
8.5
Billingslev Creek D.O
LOW FLOW
R -
7.5
7
6.5 -
5.5 -J
LI
WATER QUALITY STANDARD
T"
4
River Miles
------- |